Ihor Lyman , Ilona Sviezhentseva
Academic freedom and the conditions necessary for scholarly work are most at risk in contexts of armed conflict, political repression, and systemic crises. When researchers are forced to leave their homes, silenced, or cut off from laboratories, data, and colleagues, the consequences extend far beyond disrupted individual careers. They damage national knowledge systems, erode the foundations of evidence-based decision-making, and sever intergenerational links within scientific communities — links that may take decades to rebuild.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has posed an unprecedented test for the international system supporting researchers at risk. Most existing programmes were historically designed to assist individual researchers facing persecution or forced to leave their countries. The Ukrainian case, by contrast, has affected an entire national research community, while simultaneously creating a need to support both those who have moved abroad and those who continue to work in Ukraine.
At the heart of this White Paper is the question of how effectively existing support mechanisms function in practice, who has access to them, what barriers limit participation in programmes, and whether these mechanisms can ensure not only immediate safety but also research continuity and long-term professional sustainability.
The study combines historical and policy analysis of the development of academic support over the past century with the results of a survey of 291 Ukrainian researchers conducted between January and March 2026. The authors examine five categories of contemporary support instruments: emergency relocation programmes; remote and hybrid fellowships; financial assistance without mandatory relocation; institutional and consortium-based mechanisms; and legal, visa, and administrative tools. Their effectiveness is assessed in terms of safety, research continuity, career sustainability, equity of access, family and social integration, and impact on the research system of the country of origin.
The study identifies five key findings:
1. International support instruments are perceived as more effective than national ones. Research grants, access to equipment, databases and libraries, and in-person fellowships received the highest ratings.
2. The main barrier is a lack of information rather than ineligibility for programmes. A significant proportion of researchers had not used support programmes because they were unaware of the available opportunities.
3. A structural asymmetry is built into the architecture of existing support instruments. National programmes often do not cover researchers based outside the country, while international instruments generally require mobility or relocation, which is not feasible for many researchers in Ukraine.
4. Effective support means long-term professional stability rather than a one-off intervention. Researchers need financial predictability, access to resources, and the ability to plan their research over the long term.
5. Gender-related constraints and family circumstances constitute structural barriers to participation in programmes, yet current evaluation methodologies systematically overlook this factor.
The paper’s overarching conclusion is that the global support system performs well as an emergency rescue mechanism but is considerably less effective in ensuring career sustainability, equity of access, family integration, and the preservation of the research capacity of the country of origin.
The authors recommend introducing longer and more predictable funding programmes, improving coordination in the dissemination of information, creating equitable opportunities for researchers in Ukraine and abroad, developing remote, hybrid, and dual-affiliation models, reducing legal and bureaucratic barriers, and incorporating family needs into programme design from the outset.
The findings will be useful to governments, international organisations, universities, research institutions, donors, and foundations developing support programmes for researchers affected by war, political repression, and systemic crises.